Reliability and Validity of Questionnaires to Assess Communication Skills in People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review

IF 2 2区医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Pub Date : 2026-04-09 Epub Date: 2025-12-01 DOI:10.1111/jir.70063

Catriona Windsor, Kari-Anne Bottegård Næss, Melanie Kirmess, Stijn Deckers, Natalie Ballentine, Sangwon Yoon, Renée Speyer

{"title":"Reliability and Validity of Questionnaires to Assess Communication Skills in People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review","authors":"Catriona Windsor, Kari-Anne Bottegård Næss, Melanie Kirmess, Stijn Deckers, Natalie Ballentine, Sangwon Yoon, Renée Speyer","doi":"10.1111/jir.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Assessing communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities is essential yet challenging because of the complexity of the construct and limited availability of psychometrically robust tools. This review aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of communication questionnaires used with this population.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and COSMIN definitions for validity and reliability. Five databases (Cinahl, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2024. Inclusion criteria required questionnaires to assess communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and report on validity or reliability. Methodological quality was appraised using the QualSyst tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Six questionnaires described in five studies and three manuals met the inclusion criteria. Validity evidence was more frequently reported than reliability, though both were inconsistently documented. No questionnaire demonstrated a comprehensive evaluation of validity or reliability. Content validity was often limited by a lack of stakeholder involvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Current questionnaires show promise but require further validation. Future research should prioritise stakeholder engagement, content and structural validity to ensure an inclusive, reliable communication assessment.</p>\n \n <p><b>Prospero Id:</b> CRD42023413902</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":"70 5","pages":"449-471"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jir.70063","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.70063","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Assessing communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities is essential yet challenging because of the complexity of the construct and limited availability of psychometrically robust tools. This review aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of communication questionnaires used with this population.

Method

A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and COSMIN definitions for validity and reliability. Five databases (Cinahl, Embase, Eric, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2024. Inclusion criteria required questionnaires to assess communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and report on validity or reliability. Methodological quality was appraised using the QualSyst tool.

Results

Six questionnaires described in five studies and three manuals met the inclusion criteria. Validity evidence was more frequently reported than reliability, though both were inconsistently documented. No questionnaire demonstrated a comprehensive evaluation of validity or reliability. Content validity was often limited by a lack of stakeholder involvement.

Conclusions

Current questionnaires show promise but require further validation. Future research should prioritise stakeholder engagement, content and structural validity to ensure an inclusive, reliable communication assessment.

Prospero Id: CRD42023413902

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估智障人士沟通技巧问卷的信度与效度：系统回顾。

背景：评估智力残疾个体的沟通是必要的，但由于结构的复杂性和有限的心理测量学可靠工具的可用性，具有挑战性。本综述旨在评估用于该人群的沟通问卷的效度和可靠性。方法：按照PRISMA 2020指南和COSMIN定义进行效度和信度的系统评价。五个数据库（Cinahl, Embase, Eric， PsycINFO和PubMed）检索了2000年至2024年发表的研究。纳入标准要求用问卷评估智障人士的沟通能力，并报告其效度或信度。使用QualSyst工具评价方法学质量。结果：5项研究中描述的6份问卷和3份手册符合纳入标准。效度证据比信度证据更常被报道，尽管两者的记录并不一致。没有问卷显示出全面的效度或信度评估。内容有效性经常受到缺乏涉众参与的限制。结论：目前的调查问卷显示有希望，但需要进一步验证。未来的研究应优先考虑利益相关者的参与、内容和结构有效性，以确保包容性、可靠性的沟通评估。普洛斯彼罗Id: CRD42023413902。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Multiple-

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

5.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.